Blog 10 - Ramblings about Articulation and Perception

               In thinking about this week’s readings, I am most moved by the excerpt from Locke’s essay, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. For me, the take-home message was two-fold: first, words are flawed (see pages 817 and 818) and, second, despite these flaws, words do have at least some value (e.g., communication to self [see page 817] and in civil/legal matters [see page 821]). Thus, overall, I believe Locke was arguing that while words may be capable of describing attributes and characteristics of things, sufficient for some types of discourse, they are not sufficient for explaining the deeper philosophical traits/attributes associated with the thing—thus, words cannot really convey truth. I think we saw this same struggle with Augustine, who embodied truth as God. In piggy backing this with what we learned from our studies in Sophistry, in which humans allegedly cannot even perceive full truths, then we see a double whammy in the transmission of knowledge: roadblock one is our own ability to perceive, and roadblock two is our ability to articulate the perception into something appreciable by others.

                Many people might not even be overtly aware of these limitations, but as Technical Communicators, realizing these limitations is, in my mind, the first step in trying to overcoming them—or at least ensuring a reduced signal loss through the discourse event (perceptionàarticulationà response from theother party). While I am not prepared to layout in great detail an actual method for reconciling these issues, I do think being aware of the problem/limitation/scope of our abilities is at least one step in the right direction, and I do offer one idea below that might help strengthen the signal.

                This idea of perception and articulation and the limitations we have, to me, suggest that there is some internal filtering mechanism—perhaps some we are unconscious of as we perceive, but something we are perhaps more conscious of as we articulate. We consciously choose words that we hope will best convey our intended meaning through an almost lightning-fast decision-making process that is often on autopilot.

                I surmise that if we consider “ethics,” momentarily, we can see the same process, but eventuated in slow motion---such that we are fully conscious of the mental weighing we are doing in determining our next step or action. If the processes are similar, I hypothesize, it might be possible to slow-down our language-thought processes in order to weigh wording options more carefully, and, in doing so, we might be able to ensure a more precise transfer from intended idea to articulated idea---thus, at least addressing some aspect of the overall knowledge transmission issues cited by Locke and the Sophists. In terms of enhancing our perception abilities, like Cicero, I can only deduce that a well-rounded education may be a way to help expand our minds and build neuron connections that might in some way deepen and broaden our understanding of the word around us, thereby enhancing our perception of it. 

Blog 9 - Eramus---More reclassification and Organization

With Ramus, last week, we saw a need to reclassify and separate (invention as part of dialectic, etc.), and, this week, we see this same theme carried along as Eramus tries to divide Copia into an "expression" component and a "subject-matter-expertise" component (see page 598 in Bizzell and Herzberg, 2001). I like the idea of thinking about the two separately from an analysis standpoint, but, when it comes to execution/delivery, I think they both go hand-in-hand and influence one another in real-time as the speech/writing unfolds. In looking at his second piece, the subject-matter component, I am somewhat surprised in the organizational approach he takes---I read them as independent methods with specific goals, which is, perhaps, how they were intended.

But, as I thought about the methods more, I began to see ways to reclassify his explanations, thereby carrying on the reorganization theme of Ramus and Eramus. For me, many of the methods could, perhaps, be combined under the umbrella of purposes. For example, I would combine Method 10 (see page 613) and Method 11 (see page 614) under the umbrella of/idea of ways to increase “rigor.”  Method 1 (see page 609) and Method 2 (see page 611), for me, deal with “clarity.” So, in seeing those connections, I began to mentally reframe how I would reorganize his methods to fit under ideas of specific purpose. To me, this would make his instructions more usable because when I look for ideas for revisions, I generally have a goal in mind, like “clarity” or “brevity,” and what I need is a “method” that will help me accomplish that; so, for me, if the methods would be reordered under themes of purpose first (i.e., “what the method can accomplish” as opposed to “what the method is”) and then “how the method works” second, they would make more sense. So, in continuing the traditions of Ramus and Eramus, I am now thinking about how I can take existing ideas and reorganize them in a way that is fresh and of use to authors.

Week 8

Hello Classmates,

Ramus’s Arguments in Rhetoric against Quintilian is interesting because it expresses disagreement with many of the ideas put forth by Quintilian and Aristotle—like the placement of invention, order, and memory in the rhetoric vs. dialectic pools. Page 694 (as presented in Bizzell and Herzberg, 2001), notes “invention is a process which supplies arguments”—it is not the argument itself; rather it is dialectic. Page 682 (as presented in Bizzell and Herzberg, 2001) reads: “But the writings of these scholars [Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian] reveal that while they indeed collected a lot of material, they did not evaluate it sufficiently, for in some places I look in vain for a syllogism. And they did not arrange it in a sufficiently fitting order, for elsewhere I find a lack of method.” Not since our readings of Plato and Isocrates (in their qualms with the Sophist’s views) do I recall such a direct “attack” on the view of a rhetorician by another rhetorician. Ramus appears to stress delivery and performance, akin to the Sophist, and he disagrees that with Quintilian in that he thinks there is, at least in part, such thing as a universal argument (this idea seems to begin on page 690, as presented in Bizzell and Hezber, 2001). Overall, as evidenced on page 681 (as presented in Bizzell and Herzberg, 2001), Ramus’s efforts seem to be focused on defining rhetoric apart from other discipline and influences: “We shall distinguish the art of rhetoric from other arts, and make it a single one of the liberal arts, not a confused mixture of all arts; we shall see its true properties, remove weak and useless subtleties, and point out things that are missing.”

Thus, I think what Ramus might be saying is that the logic behind the argument is dialectic whereas the presentation, the argument itself, is the rhetorical component—that delivery and style constitutes rhetoric only? And, I think we, perhaps see a similar line of thinking, i.e., a distinction from logic and presentation, in Bacon’s work The Advancement of Learning (as presented in Bizzell and Herzber, 2001, p. 744), “It appeared also that logic differeth from Rhetoric, not only as the fist from the palm, the one close the other at large; but much more than this, that Logic handelth reason exact and in truth, and Rhetoric handleth it as is planted in popular opinions and manners.”

Thus, overall, as I think about this, I think we are seeing a push to return the term “rhetoric” back to the “cookery” Plato despised---but, I do not see it as a step backwards. We are still seeing a role for some of the deeper thoughts/implications that Plato and others valued—they are just being shifted more to the purview of “dialectic”; so we are still seeing the value of logic and reason.

So, though we are seeing some new ideas sprinkled in, overall, what I am seeing by Ramus and Bacon are largely attempts to reorganize ideas, which speaks to issue of classification—a large issue in (and a valuable tool in) technical communication.

Cris

Blog 7 - Rhetoric, a Tool for Community Building

Dear Class,

I think we have reached sort of a historical benchmark in our study of rhetoric in that if we think back to the Sophists, rhetoric was largely a tool for use in formal debate and by only a select few. Now, in looking at rhetoric in the Renaissance period, we can see that the use of rhetoric has pervades a wide variety of social arenas and is available as a tool to anyone who is literate (as discussed in Herrick). This transition did not happen overnight---it has been brewing in each of the time periods we have looked at so far. But, I think for the first time, we are seeing a concerted (and effective) effort by the rhetoricians of the day to make rhetoric grow in an effort to build community.

Thus, I see rhetoric as having a larger role in human development and interaction during this period, and as being more accessible through increased emphasis in academic studies (as indicated in Herrick). And I see a concentrated effort by the humanists in ensuring that rhetoric is interpreted and taught correctly through a contextual approach (also a point of Herrick’s). From this investment, rhetoric became not only a tool for academic speculation but also a key to practical living (as Herrick indicates) bringing a point to the transition of rhetoric from academic, to religious, to influencing daily life.

Thus, through this integration and recognition of rhetoric into both the academic and the societal, I see a contrast to Euro-Christian rhetoric, which was largely a tool of seclusion and separation (e.g., prayer, mediation, etc.), to something more social (like letter writing). So, for me, for the first time instead of thinking of rhetoric as a way to divide and separate (a tension that I think was present in the secular vs. Christian in the Medieval period we looked at last week), I am seeing rhetoric as a tool for unity and as a means to building community. I am seeing a transition from the virtues of rhetoric (like knowledge) to something practical (societal betterment). I think these are improvements that Isocrates, Plato, and Cicero would have valued.  

Cris